Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - Kerry has the power, why do you defend him so?

Yankeefan21 · Aug 9, 2004, 12:55 am

I dont understand that sentence at all: "on one hand they want to come off like they are credible in their statements against Kerry yet need to dig up "eyewitness accounts"

So them trying to dig up other eyewitnesss accounts goes against their credibility? How in the heck do you come up with that logic?

In other words they have no problem with going public with their statements against John Kerry in such fashion that displays a sort of "I was there I saw him to this and that ect" but yet they have to dig up eyewitnesses

By the way have they found some eyewitnesses outside of the smearboat group to corroborate their statements?

To dig up more eyewitness accounts would tell you that they want to be more credible. People who are not seeking to be credible wouldnt be looking for eyewitnesses at all. You once mentioned the word "Mafia". Does the Mafia like eyewitnesses?

Yea the mafia loves eyewitnesses. PAID eyewitnesses and witnesses that buckle under the pressure of the threat of having a bomb strapped to your car. Not to mention it's easy to be selective with your eyewitnesses.

Less than honorable qualities? Right, sure. For trying to set the record straight. For contradicting Kerry.

No for trying to spin the record for LYING for acting in a dispicable manner towards someone like Kerry and giving someone like Bush a free pass.

although this is only one member, not going to characterize all of the smearboat liars for Bush as being like this guy, but here's a little on Dr Corsi the co-author of "Unfit to Command"

While much has been written about the identity and history of John E. O'Neill -- one of the authors of the forthcoming Regnery book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (whose links in the GOP go back to his days as "protégé of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson") -- little has been said about his co-author, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD.

• Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

• Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

• Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

• Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

• Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

Because they were Navy, in Vietnam. They're not eyewitnesses to what Bush did or didnt do.

Well they weren't in the same boat as Kerry, yet somehow they're fully qualified and trustworthy in their accusations on Kerry's record?

He has provided a heck of alot more documentation than he used to, and it isnt up to him to prove he was NOT awol. That's called proving a negative and no one can do that. The burden of proof is upon his accusers, not him.

Well by this logic I'd say the burden of proof is on the smearboat liars for Bush and proof is something they have yet to come up with concerning their attacks on Kerry yet you're quick to buy into their words and statements.

What else has Bush released besides his xeroxed dental records what do you mean by he's provided a heck of alot more documentation than he used to?

Lie. He does not loathe and spit on the military.

Oh no? what do you call sending 1000 soldiers off to war to die and have thousands of others be wounded for lies and profits?

Then to boot refusing to put the soldier's safety and needs ahead of his rich buddies?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration threatened for the first time Tuesday to veto an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress converts any Iraqi rebuilding money into loans.

White House officials issued the warning even though many lawmakers agree that the bill's final version is likely to bow to President Bush and omit any loans. By underscoring Bush's opposition to loans, the administration threat could make it easier for congressional Republican leaders to nail down enough votes to help the president prevail.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/...ngress.iraq.ap/

2a) Why haven't Bush's AWOL accusers gone after Kerry yet?

Why should they go after Kerry? Kerry wasn't AWOL.

Maybe they just dont share your view that Bush isnt unworthy of office. Maybe they feel that Bush is worthy, or the lesser of two evils at the very least.

Or maybe they're doing their job as good little GOP shills like they are after Kerry's speech before the Senate. With all the funding they're getting from GOP interests I doubt they secretly think kerry is the greater of two evils

Go straight to their message board on their website and ask them yourself

Thanks for the link I plan to.

Aug 9, 2004, 12:55 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Yankeefan21 Molten Ash Posts: 61	I dont understand that sentence at all: "on one hand they want to come off like they are credible in their statements against Kerry yet need to dig up "eyewitness accounts" So them trying to dig up other eyewitnesss accounts goes against their credibility? How in the heck do you come up with that logic? In other words they have no problem with going public with their statements against John Kerry in such fashion that displays a sort of "I was there I saw him to this and that ect" but yet they have to dig up eyewitnesses By the way have they found some eyewitnesses outside of the smearboat group to corroborate their statements? To dig up more eyewitness accounts would tell you that they want to be more credible. People who are not seeking to be credible wouldnt be looking for eyewitnesses at all. You once mentioned the word "Mafia". Does the Mafia like eyewitnesses? Yea the mafia loves eyewitnesses. PAID eyewitnesses and witnesses that buckle under the pressure of the threat of having a bomb strapped to your car. Not to mention it's easy to be selective with your eyewitnesses. Less than honorable qualities? Right, sure. For trying to set the record straight. For contradicting Kerry. No for trying to spin the record for LYING for acting in a dispicable manner towards someone like Kerry and giving someone like Bush a free pass. although this is only one member, not going to characterize all of the smearboat liars for Bush as being like this guy, but here's a little on Dr Corsi the co-author of "Unfit to Command" While much has been written about the identity and history of John E. O'Neill -- one of the authors of the forthcoming Regnery book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (whose links in the GOP go back to his days as "protégé of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson") -- little has been said about his co-author, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD. • Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion" • Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press" • Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together" • Corsi on "John Fing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?" • Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?" http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010 Because they were Navy, in Vietnam. They're not eyewitnesses to what Bush did or didnt do.* Well they weren't in the same boat as Kerry, yet somehow they're fully qualified and trustworthy in their accusations on Kerry's record? He has provided a heck of alot more documentation than he used to, and it isnt up to him to prove he was NOT awol. That's called proving a negative and no one can do that. The burden of proof is upon his accusers, not him. Well by this logic I'd say the burden of proof is on the smearboat liars for Bush and proof is something they have yet to come up with concerning their attacks on Kerry yet you're quick to buy into their words and statements. What else has Bush released besides his xeroxed dental records what do you mean by he's provided a heck of alot more documentation than he used to? Lie. He does not loathe and spit on the military. Oh no? what do you call sending 1000 soldiers off to war to die and have thousands of others be wounded for lies and profits? Then to boot refusing to put the soldier's safety and needs ahead of his rich buddies? WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration threatened for the first time Tuesday to veto an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress converts any Iraqi rebuilding money into loans. White House officials issued the warning even though many lawmakers agree that the bill's final version is likely to bow to President Bush and omit any loans. By underscoring Bush's opposition to loans, the administration threat could make it easier for congressional Republican leaders to nail down enough votes to help the president prevail. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/...ngress.iraq.ap/ 2a) Why haven't Bush's AWOL accusers gone after Kerry yet? Why should they go after Kerry? Kerry wasn't AWOL. Maybe they just dont share your view that Bush isnt unworthy of office. Maybe they feel that Bush is worthy, or the lesser of two evils at the very least. Or maybe they're doing their job as good little GOP shills like they are after Kerry's speech before the Senate. With all the funding they're getting from GOP interests I doubt they secretly think kerry is the greater of two evils Go straight to their message board on their website and ask them yourself Thanks for the link I plan to.